On Mar 7, 8:36*pm, mark townend wrote:
See my proposals here -

http://www.townend.me/files/circlenorth.pdf

--
Mark

1. What exactly does swapping things at Aldgate achieve?

Circle line trains still cross the H&C tracks, so you haven't resolved
any conflict issues.

And what does the district line need extension to Aldgate for - that
bit of the circle isn't that busy, its not like there are loads of
people who need to get to that bit of the city via the district line.

And theres some structural supports right in the middle of where your
tracks would go.

2. Why curtail the Met line at Moorgate?

It may be connected by crossrail to liverpool street, but thats still
a massive walk - virtually the same distance as it is on the surface.
Its really not the same thing as a platform at liverpool street.

A very large number of people take the Met line to the city. The main
SSL line stations on the north side of the city are Moorgate,
Liverpool Street, and Aldgate - cutting it off at Moorgate would
massively inconvenience thousands of people.

3. Why use the former thameslink route from farringdon?

It won't relieve congestion / increase capacity, because there's still
only the existing amount of track between Baker Street and Farringdon,
so there's still the same number of trains having to fit into that
track.

So why not just branch off at moorgate? Branching from farringdon just
seems like a very thinly disguised excuse for reusing those tracks,
without any genuine justification behind it.

4. Paddington. Why?

Theres that expensive new ticket hall above platforms 16 & 15, with
lifts direct to platform.

Moving the main line to a seperate platform means expensive new lifts
have to be built, just to keep the station's newly built disabled
access.

This seems completely irrational.

5. Edgware Road - why have platform 5 the westbound through platform?

You've got an expensive change to the junction - why not just have
platform 4 the westbound through platform, as it is now, and have
platform 5 as a new terminating platform?

Creating a new platform, just means that you've got rid of cross-
platform interchange. Which removes interchange entirely for disabled
passengers. That's not a good thing. Why would you willingly do that?

Also, the sidings are already removed. There's a big new electricity
supply thing being built there, with a "green wall", so your platform
5 would be a massively expensive demolition job, with a replacement
for the new electricity supply thing, which has only just been built,
having to be rebuilt again. For what reason would you do that?

6. How does the new tunnel at Baker Street get past building
foundations?

It would have to go under the Baker Street station building - which is
quite big, so must have fairly deep foundations.

That doesn't preclude a deeper tunnel, but how would a passenger get
to platform x? How would you put in the access?

One of the few practical options would be to put escalators / lifts in
instead of the existing eastbound platform and track - but then you
couldn't have the siding you've suggested, and you'd also risk the ire
of English Heritage for altering the appearance of that part of the
station (which is one of the oldest in the world).

But you couldn't have it coming from the existing underground
concourse area either, because there isn't any room on the southern
concourse wall, and having access from the northern wall would be
peverse.

So that really leaves I suppose the area around the existing entrance
to the eastbound platform, but then you'd be restricting access to
that platform again, and English Heritage would again be against you
for harming the appearance.

You could gut the gents toilet, and use the space to provide the
access route, but that's a bit off to the side, which wouldn't be good
from a pedestrian flow point of view. And you'd **** off people who
needed one.

I suppose you could shorten platform 1, and use the space at the
southern end, but that might run into strutural problems, as its near
the wall of the surface building, several other walls, and some
trackside buildings that english heritage may well regard as
important. And its quite out of the way from the rest of the platform
- its a bit hidden, which isn't good for passengers.

You could perhaps massively rebuild the southern ticket office (the
one south of the westbound platform), so that it provides access to
the new platform, but if you are going to do that, then it would be
much more convenient for passengers if the new tunnel ran directly
under the existing tracks, rather than round to the north. And that
area isn't exactly convenient - the bridge is very low-ceilinged, and
narrow, so its not a good idea to have even more people using it.

Most of your proposals seem like they'd be massively expensive vanity
projects, for zero actual benefit.